Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
I've no idea and not much more interest but it is entirely possible that she was making her own way when they met in low paid employment but that her parents are loaded and helped her out buying this property. The 2 versions are not necessarily inconsistent.
My concern is despite all this gotcha nonsense for Farage and Rayner the focus is never on how ridiculous our rules and indeed taxes are on the buying of property. Why on earth should buying a house be a taxable event? How does this help job mobility, younger buyers wanting to have families, investment in the housing stock etc etc? Are we not acting directly against several important public policies? They are stupid taxes and have become ever more so as we try to penalise those with more than one property.
CGT on the vendor? Both taxes try to claw back some of the capital gain in the housing market boosted by successive, mainly Tory, governments.
CGT on the vendor makes a lot more sense than what we do right now but it also discourages downsizing, job mobility etc. Almost all taxes have some negative effects but property taxes seem to me to be much more pernicious than most.
The only tax on real property that makes sense is a land value tax because it encourages efficient use of land. The rest is fiddling.
I agree in principle and like the effect, but it fails the easy-to-implement test. Last sale price + local HPI is the way IMO.
We bought our house in 1976 for £15,000
It's current market value is circa £500,000 whereas applying inflation only it would be just over £100,000
You apply it to land value, on a district (not individual property) level.
HPI is either house price inflation or house price index, I think (both meaning the same). So you uprate the assessed value of a house based on sale prices of neighbouring properties (which is largely what the online house price estimators do at present - and a fair bit of what local estate agents do*). Doesn't pick up extensions etc so would need to decide how (and whether) to account for that, depending on whether we want to encourage extension building - council tax also doesn't automatically adjust for extensions, to my personal advantage, until revaluation on sale, I believe. It could be done though, through planning applications and/or building control (latter as planning applications not needed for permitted development).
You could do similar on land value - do the same price tracking but take out the RICS rebuild cost or similar.
I support all of these approaches in principle. I am however interested in my particular case, where my land would nowadays support probably three or even four houses. It's a 1920s semi with a long garden - now rather than a row of semis along the road, there would be a cul-de-sac or another parallel road put in. Does that mean my land is high value? On the market it wouldn't be as you couldn't build the extra houses without purchasing neighbouring ones and knocking them down too - there's not enough space on the side for an access road. If you did a simple value per sqm calculation based on local averages then it would be assessed as high value nonetheless.
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
Donald Trump has successfully portrayed himself as both fabulously wealthy and as an everyman anti-elite crusader. I'm not certain Farage having a nice house will damage his image.
People know Farage isn’t a working class everyman.
His gift is that he speaks directly to them in language they get and that lands well, when compared to the stilted politician-speak they get from everyone else.
He is a 'he will do for now' figure like Boris and will end up just as hated by a large plurality or majority
Certainly it remains my view that Farage (if he wins power) is going to be the latest in the long line of disappointments as PM. But it will hit his voters harder because he is the one who is meant to fix everything.
As Trump shows, he won't have to fix anything. In fact, he can actively break things, and get away with it because he will just find a group to blame for the failure.
Perhaps it will be women breastfeeding in public. Perhaps it will be anyone not White British. Perhaps it will be the left.
But the failure will not be owned by Farage or the Farage Party. It will be someone else's fault.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
It's interesting how often politicians who sounded rubbish when they were in office become sensible once they've left Government.
Lord Gove, who, apparently held several positions in the Conservative administrations from 2010-24 (it's too early), has told the Independent Commission on Community Cohesion (chaired jointly by Sadiq Javid and Jon Cruddas) the Cameron Government was wrong to remove or water down the ASBOs of the Blair Government just to satisfy civil libertarians.
Once we get past this mea culpa, we then get this piece of wisdom from the former MP for what is now the Liberal Democrat stronghold of Surrey Heath:
He also emphasised the need for civic participation, but said this would be “very, very difficult for the state or its agencies to encourage”.
“The more that lads and dads are going to football together. The more that people are going to places of worship and joining in the activities around that, the better overall.
“But you can’t make people love football, you can’t enforce good parenting, you can’t make people want to take part in a rich civic life if they don’t want to.
“And there are bigger social trends which are encouraging atomisation so that the 11-year-old who might have been going to watch QPR 20 or 30 years ago is now more likely to be playing Fifa at home.”
He said the “right mix” of shops on high streets was key to encouraging a sense of community, adding that “people feel that high streets that have, again, vape shops, Turkish barbers, charity shops and voids in particular are a problem”.
Our politics is a reflection of our life and the way we live and those who marched on the "Unite the Kingdom" protest weren't just a bunch of knuckleheaded racists (undoubtedly there were some) but people desperate to claim or reclaim a sense of identity, of belonging, even of purpose. When you don't recognise the place in which you live and you don't understand the world in which you're living, it's natural to become frustrated and angry.
You might argue (and I'd have some sympathy) an element of this is romanticised nostalgia much as "back to basics" was 30+ years go but the truth is people need to feel comfortable with the world and their place in it. Rapid technological and socio-economic change has happened before and people have protested against it (often violently) and this is another phase. We can't uninvent mobile phones, the Internet, supermarkets or online gaming any more than we can the internal combustion engine - it's about how people, society and politics adapt to change rather than trying to turn the clock back.
PB is an example of that adaption.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
Yeah, problematic. The annual gift allowance is £3000 or £250 to an umlimited number if people or anything out of disposable income. Use up the limit and it becomes ludicrously chaotic. The State thinking everything belongs to it and you only have temporary custody of your own possessions and wealth. And would invite a whole new swathe of workarounds
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
You can give £3,000 away each year tax free
Isn't it that you can give away as much money as you want each year tax free, as long as you don't die within 7 years?
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
Surely Making Plans for Nigel was just a Love Action for Ms Ferrari?
And now he is Being Boiled over it...
Yay, somebody spotted my subtle musical reference in the headline.
So subtle that you missed out half the line.
Fake News!
Look again.
Music trivia: the cocktail bar in question in the Human League song was on Glossop Road, Sheffield just by the Hallamshire Hospital. I think it was called Hanrahans.
Oh God not Hanrahans. I remember a terrible night there a million years ago where we all went to drink coctails but they had a special on Murphys (£1 a pint) and I had a tenner.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
You can give £3,000 away each year tax free
Yeah but you actually have to keep records for that limit to mean anything.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
You can give £3,000 away each year tax free
Isn't it that you can give away as much money as you want each year tax free, as long as you don't die within 7 years?
There are gifting limits outside of IHT £3000 a year £250 to unlimited people Any amount out of disposable income
None would attract IHT regardless of when the donor dies
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Maybe if there are two of you, and you have two houses, the taxman generally assumes you have a house each
I know a married couple with a second home in Cornwall. They do apparently own one each, and when they were faced with second home council tax, one of them moved her residency to the Cornwall one. Not sure if this is dodgy or not, but as they spend approximately equal amounts in each place it doesn't seem unreasonable
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
You can give £3,000 away each year tax free
Isn't it that you can give away as much money as you want each year tax free, as long as you don't die within 7 years?
There are gifting limits outside of IHT £3000 a year £250 to unlimited people Any amount out of disposable income
None would attract IHT regardless of when the donor dies
There are also wedding gifts limits depending on closeness of relative
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
Donald Trump has successfully portrayed himself as both fabulously wealthy and as an everyman anti-elite crusader. I'm not certain Farage having a nice house will damage his image.
People know Farage isn’t a working class everyman.
His gift is that he speaks directly to them in language they get and that lands well, when compared to the stilted politician-speak they get from everyone else.
He is a 'he will do for now' figure like Boris and will end up just as hated by a large plurality or majority
Certainly it remains my view that Farage (if he wins power) is going to be the latest in the long line of disappointments as PM. But it will hit his voters harder because he is the one who is meant to fix everything.
As Trump shows, he won't have to fix anything. In fact, he can actively break things, and get away with it because he will just find a group to blame for the failure.
Perhaps it will be women breastfeeding in public. Perhaps it will be anyone not White British. Perhaps it will be the left.
But the failure will not be owned by Farage or the Farage Party. It will be someone else's fault.
I've no idea and not much more interest but it is entirely possible that she was making her own way when they met in low paid employment but that her parents are loaded and helped her out buying this property. The 2 versions are not necessarily inconsistent.
My concern is despite all this gotcha nonsense for Farage and Rayner the focus is never on how ridiculous our rules and indeed taxes are on the buying of property. Why on earth should buying a house be a taxable event? How does this help job mobility, younger buyers wanting to have families, investment in the housing stock etc etc? Are we not acting directly against several important public policies? They are stupid taxes and have become ever more so as we try to penalise those with more than one property.
The Clacton MP has denied avoiding more than £44,000 in additional stamp duty on the purchase of the constituency home by putting it in his partner Laure Ferrari's name, saying that she bought it with her own funds.
He suggested that she was able to afford to buy the four-bedroom home, which was bought without a mortgage, because she comes from a wealthy French family.
However, the BBC has examined French property and company records and has been unable to find evidence that Ferrari's parents have the means to give their daughter a significant contribution towards the purchase of the home.
Surely Making Plans for Nigel was just a Love Action for Ms Ferrari?
And now he is Being Boiled over it...
Yay, somebody spotted my subtle musical reference in the headline.
So subtle that you missed out half the line.
Fake News!
Look again.
Music trivia: the cocktail bar in question in the Human League song was on Glossop Road, Sheffield just by the Hallamshire Hospital. I think it was called Hanrahans.
Oh God not Hanrahans. I remember a terrible night there a million years ago where we all went to drink coctails but they had a special on Murphys (£1 a pint) and I had a tenner.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
You can give £3,000 away each year tax free
Isn't it that you can give away as much money as you want each year tax free, as long as you don't die within 7 years?
There are gifting limits outside of IHT £3000 a year £250 to unlimited people Any amount out of disposable income
None would attract IHT regardless of when the donor dies
But you can gift £5 million (if you have it) and there is no tax to pay, if you live long enough for it not to come under IHT.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
That's a good point. If people hadn't gone to Bluesky everybody would have been happy and they would have cancelled the event and sung "Kumbaya". Obviously.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
The last point is very true. Abandoning X en masse is huge mistake for the Left. There's many non-politically aligned people around the world, for whom it just represents their daily reality, and are posting on other issues.
If you abandon the political dimension of that global meeting-space entirely to the hatd right, that just becomes many less politically committed people's sense of objective reality, and also majority opinion.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Its likely (from those sniffing around the story) an 'original source of the funds' question
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
Donald Trump has successfully portrayed himself as both fabulously wealthy and as an everyman anti-elite crusader. I'm not certain Farage having a nice house will damage his image.
People know Farage isn’t a working class everyman.
His gift is that he speaks directly to them in language they get and that lands well, when compared to the stilted politician-speak they get from everyone else.
He is a 'he will do for now' figure like Boris and will end up just as hated by a large plurality or majority
Certainly it remains my view that Farage (if he wins power) is going to be the latest in the long line of disappointments as PM. But it will hit his voters harder because he is the one who is meant to fix everything.
As Trump shows, he won't have to fix anything. In fact, he can actively break things, and get away with it because he will just find a group to blame for the failure.
Perhaps it will be women breastfeeding in public. Perhaps it will be anyone not White British. Perhaps it will be the left.
But the failure will not be owned by Farage or the Farage Party. It will be someone else's fault.
Which is what every government does when things go wrong, sometimes with justification and sometimes without.
And some supporters will believe every word and repeat them for ever.
But governments need more than that to be re-elected.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
You can give £3,000 away each year tax free
Isn't it that you can give away as much money as you want each year tax free, as long as you don't die within 7 years?
On topic: it's important to get to the bottom of this. Maybe Farage's latest squeeze found the money down the back of her sofa. But if Farage paid for the house then lied about it he is in big big trouble. If a wealthy donor paid for it that's a whole new can of worms. There's a lot of money behind Farage, it would be useful to put all of that under scrutiny.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed.
I didn't realise it had got as far as an experiment. A plaything for the bien pensant 1% more like.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Maybe if there are two of you, and you have two houses, the taxman generally assumes you have a house each
I know a married couple with a second home in Cornwall. They do apparently own one each, and when they were faced with second home council tax, one of them moved her residency to the Cornwall one. Not sure if this is dodgy or not, but as they spend approximately equal amounts in each place it doesn't seem unreasonable
I thought that married couples were obliged to declare the same primary residence?
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I don't (e) know the lady's name.)
No - but the person giving the gift could be subject to the 7 year IHT rule
I expect that to go in Reeves statement in November
Doubt it. It would mean all gifts would be subject to tax, which would be a horrible admin burden. Even sending your friend a fiver by bank transfer for half a pint.
It's interesting how often politicians who sounded rubbish when they were in office become sensible once they've left Government.
Lord Gove, who, apparently held several positions in the Conservative administrations from 2010-24 (it's too early), has told the Independent Commission on Community Cohesion (chaired jointly by Sadiq Javid and Jon Cruddas) the Cameron Government was wrong to remove or water down the ASBOs of the Blair Government just to satisfy civil libertarians.
Once we get past this mea culpa, we then get this piece of wisdom from the former MP for what is now the Liberal Democrat stronghold of Surrey Heath:
He also emphasised the need for civic participation, but said this would be “very, very difficult for the state or its agencies to encourage”.
“The more that lads and dads are going to football together. The more that people are going to places of worship and joining in the activities around that, the better overall.
“But you can’t make people love football, you can’t enforce good parenting, you can’t make people want to take part in a rich civic life if they don’t want to.
“And there are bigger social trends which are encouraging atomisation so that the 11-year-old who might have been going to watch QPR 20 or 30 years ago is now more likely to be playing Fifa at home.”
He said the “right mix” of shops on high streets was key to encouraging a sense of community, adding that “people feel that high streets that have, again, vape shops, Turkish barbers, charity shops and voids in particular are a problem”.
Our politics is a reflection of our life and the way we live and those who marched on the "Unite the Kingdom" protest weren't just a bunch of knuckleheaded racists (undoubtedly there were some) but people desperate to claim or reclaim a sense of identity, of belonging, even of purpose. When you don't recognise the place in which you live and you don't understand the world in which you're living, it's natural to become frustrated and angry.
You might argue (and I'd have some sympathy) an element of this is romanticised nostalgia much as "back to basics" was 30+ years go but the truth is people need to feel comfortable with the world and their place in it. Rapid technological and socio-economic change has happened before and people have protested against it (often violently) and this is another phase. We can't uninvent mobile phones, the Internet, supermarkets or online gaming any more than we can the internal combustion engine - it's about how people, society and politics adapt to change rather than trying to turn the clock back.
To pick up on a very minor point, I don't think charity shops are a problem. They can be hubs of community volunteering, and they offer cheap goods for those affected by the cost of living.
It's not really that they're a problem in themselves - just that they are among the very few legitimate retailers who can continue on provincial high streets without going bust, as they're subsidised retail.
Them, and the odd fast food outlet, which is missing from Gove's list.
A mental stroll down an actual local street gives me ...vape shops, Turkish barbers, small newsagents (any of which are not entirely unlikely to be money laundering fronts), fast food outlets, charity shops, and voids.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Its likely (from those sniffing around the story) an 'original source of the funds' question
Which is a justifiable question.
Instead the focus is "did Farage dodge tax", when he didn't.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
As I understand it...
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house (which he says he didn't), that is legal and attracts no tax (unless he dies soon and it comes under inheritance tax).
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house specifically as a way to avoid paying more stamp duty, that doesn't change anything in terms of tax rules, but it might be seen to be cynical.
If Farage came to an arrangement with his girlfriend whereby he pretended to give her money, but they secretly agreed it was still his money, then that would be tax avoidance. (Again, Farage denies doing this.)
Meanwhile, it has been noted that Farage, at the time, said he had bought the house. This turns out to have been not true. It is not illegal to say something that isn't true, but it's not a good look for a politician.
I never thought it would happen Buying a house in Clacton
He unscrews the top of his new whisky bottle And shuffles about in his candlelit hovel. Like some kind of witch with blue fingers in mittens He smells like the cat and the neighbours he sickens.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
The last point is very true. Abandoning X en masse is huge mistake for the Left. There's many non-politically aligned people around the world, for whom it just represents their daily reality, and are posting on other issues.
If you abandon the political dimension of that global meeting-space entirely to the hatd right, that just becomes many politically unaligned people's sense of objective reality, and also majority opinion.
Musk has so twised the algorithms to repeat what he wants them to that I don't think the absence of some people on the left makes any difference.
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
The idea that a member of the “elite” can’t represent the “non-elite” doesn’t pass the test of history.
Where did I say that? I said that he claims not to be the elite.
He is claiming to be "non-elite" in outlook, not personal wealth.
Just as Caesar (nobiles, family going back to the kings, immensely rich) claimed to be an outsider to the existing elite - which he was to an extent. His entire political career was in the face of The Establishment.
See all those who have followed him. All the way to Trump.
It seems difficult for those in conventional politics to realise - The Head Count see *everyone* at the top of politics as rich and powerful.
Angela Rayner is rich and powerful - to them. She earns multiple times their salary in their lifetime, will retire on a pension higher than their salaries, owns lots of property, mixes with the rich and powerful etc.
What the Head Count see is an In Group (Currently the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem) which, to them seems to consist of identikit politicians, selling the same message. Those aspiring to be the Out Group are accepted as the Populares.
The guy in the Human League song is a creepy, misogynistic stalker.
Just saying.
Next you'll be saying Every Breath You Take is kind of creepy and not romantic!
That song, of course, is meant to be creepy and Sting was disturbed by how many people interpreted it as romantic, even playing it at weddings. He wrote "If You Love Somebody Set Them Free" in response.
aren’t agents and solicitors, by dint of the money laundering regulations, obliged to confirm exactly where the money comes from?
If the girlfriend turns up to their door with a pot of £800k, isn’t there meant to be some form of investigation as to where that £800k comes from? Particularly given that she is a connected person to a UK politician, so doesn’t that make it more strict?
Trevor Phillips on Times Radio this morning said the three main themes of the march were 1) immigration; 2) pride in our country; and 3) christianity.
Which last I didn't see coming as England is quite some way along its post-reformation journey to complete atheism. Stig Abell countered that when people said "christianity" it was shorthand for times gone past (old maids..holy communion...etc).
To which he, Phillips, then went on to say that the/a main driving force of this christian resurgence was from immigrants.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
As I understand it...
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house (which he says he didn't), that is legal and attracts no tax (unless he dies soon and it comes under inheritance tax).
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house specifically as a way to avoid paying more stamp duty, that doesn't change anything in terms of tax rules, but it might be seen to be cynical.
If Farage came to an arrangement with his girlfriend whereby he pretended to give her money, but they secretly agreed it was still his money, then that would be tax avoidance. (Again, Farage denies doing this.)
Meanwhile, it has been noted that Farage, at the time, said he had bought the house. This turns out to have been not true. It is not illegal to say something that isn't true, but it's not a good look for a politician.
Not quite. He claims not to have gifted the money but if he had he would have had to declare no interest in the property. He lives there.
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
Donald Trump has successfully portrayed himself as both fabulously wealthy and as an everyman anti-elite crusader. I'm not certain Farage having a nice house will damage his image.
People know Farage isn’t a working class everyman.
His gift is that he speaks directly to them in language they get and that lands well, when compared to the stilted politician-speak they get from everyone else.
He is a 'he will do for now' figure like Boris and will end up just as hated by a large plurality or majority
Certainly it remains my view that Farage (if he wins power) is going to be the latest in the long line of disappointments as PM. But it will hit his voters harder because he is the one who is meant to fix everything.
As Trump shows, he won't have to fix anything. In fact, he can actively break things, and get away with it because he will just find a group to blame for the failure.
Perhaps it will be women breastfeeding in public. Perhaps it will be anyone not White British. Perhaps it will be the left.
But the failure will not be owned by Farage or the Farage Party. It will be someone else's fault.
Which is what every government does when things go wrong, sometimes with justification and sometimes without.
And some supporters will believe every word and repeat them for ever.
But governments need more than that to be re-elected.
As Trump discovered in 2020.
It's not what every government does when things go wrong. They might blame something, but blaming a particular group is typically a more right-wing and/or populist response.
Picture of the day: I'm always fascinated by abrupt changes of land use. Here is the point where the encroaching flattification of Manchester reaches the bit we might term 'what inner Manchester used to be like'.
Remarkable that there are still places remaining that are “what inner Manchester used to be like”. I remember from childhood visits the bizarre (in hindsight) sight of the centre of a huge city filled with empty old warehouses, car parks and weedy waste ground.
There are still unaccountable pockets of London like that too, mostly along the Thames estuary.
I love this stuff. I find it fascinating. Do you remember from GCSE geography the Burgess and Hoyt models of cities? When I was small I had a very clear understanding that while city centres held some useful functions, no-one wanted to be anywhere near them. In my head I carried around a Burgess model even before I knew it existed. This wasn't just Manchester, it was most of the UK's big industrial cities. I was fascinated when I found out that the UK - due to its industrial history - wasn't typical, and things didn't have to be like that. Even so, to get to a place where inner Manchester is a desirable place to live still seems astonishing, and credit to the visionaries who believed in it.
This site is peculiar: it's a scrapyard, long since surrounded by reasonably high value flats. But it's cut off between the railway and the Manchester Ship Canal. I had expected it to be redeveloped ten years or more back, but it's clinging on while the flats march outwards past it.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed.
Musk took what was a monopoly and fractured it. While Bluesky isn’t the success others think it should be it’s a far nicer platform to spend time on and 1 I trust because I understand the algorithm that is generating the feed displayed to me.
The fact people on here don’t understand the power of those algorithms is frankly worrying for the world as a whole (because if we don’t understand that power even after it’s been explained x hundred times there is zero chance the general public will understand how they are being quietly manipulated
It's interesting how often politicians who sounded rubbish when they were in office become sensible once they've left Government.
Lord Gove, who, apparently held several positions in the Conservative administrations from 2010-24 (it's too early), has told the Independent Commission on Community Cohesion (chaired jointly by Sadiq Javid and Jon Cruddas) the Cameron Government was wrong to remove or water down the ASBOs of the Blair Government just to satisfy civil libertarians.
Once we get past this mea culpa, we then get this piece of wisdom from the former MP for what is now the Liberal Democrat stronghold of Surrey Heath:
He also emphasised the need for civic participation, but said this would be “very, very difficult for the state or its agencies to encourage”.
“The more that lads and dads are going to football together. The more that people are going to places of worship and joining in the activities around that, the better overall.
“But you can’t make people love football, you can’t enforce good parenting, you can’t make people want to take part in a rich civic life if they don’t want to.
“And there are bigger social trends which are encouraging atomisation so that the 11-year-old who might have been going to watch QPR 20 or 30 years ago is now more likely to be playing Fifa at home.”
He said the “right mix” of shops on high streets was key to encouraging a sense of community, adding that “people feel that high streets that have, again, vape shops, Turkish barbers, charity shops and voids in particular are a problem”.
Our politics is a reflection of our life and the way we live and those who marched on the "Unite the Kingdom" protest weren't just a bunch of knuckleheaded racists (undoubtedly there were some) but people desperate to claim or reclaim a sense of identity, of belonging, even of purpose. When you don't recognise the place in which you live and you don't understand the world in which you're living, it's natural to become frustrated and angry.
You might argue (and I'd have some sympathy) an element of this is romanticised nostalgia much as "back to basics" was 30+ years go but the truth is people need to feel comfortable with the world and their place in it. Rapid technological and socio-economic change has happened before and people have protested against it (often violently) and this is another phase. We can't uninvent mobile phones, the Internet, supermarkets or online gaming any more than we can the internal combustion engine - it's about how people, society and politics adapt to change rather than trying to turn the clock back.
To pick up on a very minor point, I don't think charity shops are a problem. They can be hubs of community volunteering, and they offer cheap goods for those affected by the cost of living.
It's not really that they're a problem in themselves - just that they are among the very few legitimate retailers who can continue on provincial high streets without going bust, as they're subsidised retail.
Them, and the odd fast food outlet, which is missing from Gove's list.
A mental stroll down an actual local street gives me ...vape shops, Turkish barbers, small newsagents (any of which are not entirely unlikely to be money laundering fronts), fast food outlets, charity shops, and voids.
The only place to buy clothing or books on our high street is a charity shop.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
The last point is very true. Abandoning X en masse is huge mistake for the Left. There's many non-politically aligned people around the world, for whom it just represents their daily reality, and are posting on other issues.
If you abandon the political dimension of that global meeting-space entirely to the hatd right, that just becomes many politically unaligned people's sense of objective reality, and also majority opinion.
Musk has so twised the algorithms to repeat what he wants them to that I don't think the absence of some people on the left makes any difference.
I wouldn't agree, there. He's made the left less visible on X, but it's also made a conscious choice to make itself a lot less visible there, too.
I find that particularly obvious in the general tenor of everyday discussions that are less obviously political, which it's harder for algorithms to identify or exclude, and which feed many people's sense of background reality.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
As I understand it...
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house (which he says he didn't), that is legal and attracts no tax (unless he dies soon and it comes under inheritance tax).
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house specifically as a way to avoid paying more stamp duty, that doesn't change anything in terms of tax rules, but it might be seen to be cynical.
If Farage came to an arrangement with his girlfriend whereby he pretended to give her money, but they secretly agreed it was still his money, then that would be tax avoidance. (Again, Farage denies doing this.)
Meanwhile, it has been noted that Farage, at the time, said he had bought the house. This turns out to have been not true. It is not illegal to say something that isn't true, but it's not a good look for a politician.
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
The idea that a member of the “elite” can’t represent the “non-elite” doesn’t pass the test of history.
Where did I say that? I said that he claims not to be the elite.
He is claiming to be "non-elite" in outlook, not personal wealth.
Just as Caesar (nobiles, family going back to the kings, immensely rich) claimed to be an outsider to the existing elite - which he was to an extent. His entire political career was in the face of The Establishment.
See all those who have followed him. All the way to Trump.
It seems difficult for those in conventional politics to realise - The Head Count see *everyone* at the top of politics as rich and powerful.
Angela Rayner is rich and powerful - to them. She earns multiple times their salary in their lifetime, will retire on a pension higher than their salaries, owns lots of property, mixes with the rich and powerful etc.
What the Head Count see is an In Group (Currently the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem) which, to them seems to consist of identikit politicians, selling the same message. Those aspiring to be the Out Group are accepted as the Populares.
I am enjoying this critique of the elite seen through the lens of Classical Rome.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed.
I didn't realise it had got as far as an experiment. A plaything for the bien pensant 1% more like.
BlueSky doesn't have a lot of users, but then X isn't particularly high up there either. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn are all way bigger than X.
Picture of the day: I'm always fascinated by abrupt changes of land use. Here is the point where the encroaching flattification of Manchester reaches the bit we might term 'what inner Manchester used to be like'.
The hedge, or the trees just in front of the flats?
Sorry - in retrospect I should ha e cropped this better. In the background is the new inner Manchester (actually Salford) - dense flats - then coming forward you have a scrapyard, then some scrubby overgrown land - then me on the tram from which this was taken - and behind me more new flats. It's the scrapyard I find fascinating. Twenty years ago it would have beenentirely typical, now it is incongruous.
It's interesting how often politicians who sounded rubbish when they were in office become sensible once they've left Government.
Lord Gove, who, apparently held several positions in the Conservative administrations from 2010-24 (it's too early), has told the Independent Commission on Community Cohesion (chaired jointly by Sadiq Javid and Jon Cruddas) the Cameron Government was wrong to remove or water down the ASBOs of the Blair Government just to satisfy civil libertarians.
Once we get past this mea culpa, we then get this piece of wisdom from the former MP for what is now the Liberal Democrat stronghold of Surrey Heath:
He also emphasised the need for civic participation, but said this would be “very, very difficult for the state or its agencies to encourage”.
“The more that lads and dads are going to football together. The more that people are going to places of worship and joining in the activities around that, the better overall.
“But you can’t make people love football, you can’t enforce good parenting, you can’t make people want to take part in a rich civic life if they don’t want to.
“And there are bigger social trends which are encouraging atomisation so that the 11-year-old who might have been going to watch QPR 20 or 30 years ago is now more likely to be playing Fifa at home.”
He said the “right mix” of shops on high streets was key to encouraging a sense of community, adding that “people feel that high streets that have, again, vape shops, Turkish barbers, charity shops and voids in particular are a problem”.
Our politics is a reflection of our life and the way we live and those who marched on the "Unite the Kingdom" protest weren't just a bunch of knuckleheaded racists (undoubtedly there were some) but people desperate to claim or reclaim a sense of identity, of belonging, even of purpose. When you don't recognise the place in which you live and you don't understand the world in which you're living, it's natural to become frustrated and angry.
You might argue (and I'd have some sympathy) an element of this is romanticised nostalgia much as "back to basics" was 30+ years go but the truth is people need to feel comfortable with the world and their place in it. Rapid technological and socio-economic change has happened before and people have protested against it (often violently) and this is another phase. We can't uninvent mobile phones, the Internet, supermarkets or online gaming any more than we can the internal combustion engine - it's about how people, society and politics adapt to change rather than trying to turn the clock back.
To pick up on a very minor point, I don't think charity shops are a problem. They can be hubs of community volunteering, and they offer cheap goods for those affected by the cost of living.
It's not really that they're a problem in themselves - just that they are among the very few legitimate retailers who can continue on provincial high streets without going bust, as they're subsidised retail.
Them, and the odd fast food outlet, which is missing from Gove's list.
A mental stroll down an actual local street gives me ...vape shops, Turkish barbers, small newsagents (any of which are not entirely unlikely to be money laundering fronts), fast food outlets, charity shops, and voids.
Charity shops are not so much subsidised retail as the tax and other costs are reduced to the point they can survive.
If you want high street shops, then the costs and tax need to be reduced to match.
By the way, several of the big charity shop chains do the following - the managers are given targets to get volunteers in to reduce the number of paid hours. In some cases, workers show up for a paid shift to be told that enough volunteers have signed up, so they are sent home. Not very charitable sounding, is it?
The guy in the Human League song is a creepy, misogynistic stalker.
Just saying.
Next you'll be saying Every Breath You Take is kind of creepy and not romantic!
That song, of course, is meant to be creepy and Sting was disturbed by how many people interpreted it as romantic, even playing it at weddings. He wrote "If You Love Somebody Set Them Free" in response.
On the subject of inappropriate songs...went to a wedding in Italy where they brought in a London gospel choir. Despite it being "the best thing we do", they were finally convinced a wedding was not the place for "I still haven't found what I'm looking for"...
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
As I understand it...
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house (which he says he didn't), that is legal and attracts no tax (unless he dies soon and it comes under inheritance tax).
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house specifically as a way to avoid paying more stamp duty, that doesn't change anything in terms of tax rules, but it might be seen to be cynical.
If Farage came to an arrangement with his girlfriend whereby he pretended to give her money, but they secretly agreed it was still his money, then that would be tax avoidance. (Again, Farage denies doing this.)
Meanwhile, it has been noted that Farage, at the time, said he had bought the house. This turns out to have been not true. It is not illegal to say something that isn't true, but it's not a good look for a politician.
Not quite. He claims not to have gifted the money but if he had he would have had to declare no interest in the property. He lives there.
That’s the crux of it. Does living there mean that it’s treated differently for tax purposes?
I think there is some IHT rule around it - intended to close the loophole of mum and dad transferring the home to their children as a gift - but I might be making things up again.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Its likely (from those sniffing around the story) an 'original source of the funds' question
Which is a justifiable question.
Instead the focus is "did Farage dodge tax", when he didn't.
Farage claims he had nothing to do with the finance of the purchase. Which makes his engagement of an expert tax adviser to check 'they did everything correctly' somewhat odd
"Asked about the Saturday demonstration, he told me he was himself undisturbed except by the incidents of violence. I think he is wrong. This is the ground on which the battle between those who want to embrace globalisation and those who want to resist — the fundamental division of our time — will be fought out."
Trevor Phillips on form as usual. Amazing that his first hand report from the event is so different to all of the third hand reports talking about the far right thugs etc... it's almost as if there's an agenda from the liberal media mafia.
I think what really rings true to me is this bit:
"One man in his forties told me he had come out to protest against the abandonment of British culture. His mother was English but his father had come from Gujarat to build a new life and had worked in a shop until he had his own. He complained that globalisation was destroying all the values that his Indian family had come to treasure, including freedom of speech."
I also think this is what Trump has tapped into in the US. As soon as China stopped exporting deflation the grand bargain of globalisation was inevitably going to fall apart. It's one thing to export working class jobs overseas in order to get substantially lower prices, a very different one to do so and not. The UK and other countries have lost their industrial bases and jobs to China and now we also high prices for imported goods. Reshoring may not be the answer but neither is what we have today, it doesn't work for enough people.
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
The idea that a member of the “elite” can’t represent the “non-elite” doesn’t pass the test of history.
Where did I say that? I said that he claims not to be the elite.
He is claiming to be "non-elite" in outlook, not personal wealth.
Just as Caesar (nobiles, family going back to the kings, immensely rich) claimed to be an outsider to the existing elite - which he was to an extent. His entire political career was in the face of The Establishment.
See all those who have followed him. All the way to Trump.
It seems difficult for those in conventional politics to realise - The Head Count see *everyone* at the top of politics as rich and powerful.
Angela Rayner is rich and powerful - to them. She earns multiple times their salary in their lifetime, will retire on a pension higher than their salaries, owns lots of property, mixes with the rich and powerful etc.
What the Head Count see is an In Group (Currently the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem) which, to them seems to consist of identikit politicians, selling the same message. Those aspiring to be the Out Group are accepted as the Populares.
I am enjoying this critique of the elite seen through the lens of Classical Rome.
Good morning, everyone.
So, in this scenario, that would make Nigel Farage the equivalent of Julius Caesar?
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
As I understand it...
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house (which he says he didn't), that is legal and attracts no tax (unless he dies soon and it comes under inheritance tax).
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house specifically as a way to avoid paying more stamp duty, that doesn't change anything in terms of tax rules, but it might be seen to be cynical.
If Farage came to an arrangement with his girlfriend whereby he pretended to give her money, but they secretly agreed it was still his money, then that would be tax avoidance. (Again, Farage denies doing this.)
Meanwhile, it has been noted that Farage, at the time, said he had bought the house. This turns out to have been not true. It is not illegal to say something that isn't true, but it's not a good look for a politician.
Not quite. He claims not to have gifted the money but if he had he would have had to declare no interest in the property. He lives there.
That’s the crux of it. Does living there mean that it’s treated differently for tax purposes?
I think there is some IHT rule around it - intended to close the loophole of mum and dad transferring the home to their children as a gift - but I might be making things up again.
My understanding also. You must have nothing to do with the property/asset or somesuch in appropriate legalese.
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
The idea that a member of the “elite” can’t represent the “non-elite” doesn’t pass the test of history.
Where did I say that? I said that he claims not to be the elite.
He is claiming to be "non-elite" in outlook, not personal wealth.
Just as Caesar (nobiles, family going back to the kings, immensely rich) claimed to be an outsider to the existing elite - which he was to an extent. His entire political career was in the face of The Establishment.
See all those who have followed him. All the way to Trump.
It seems difficult for those in conventional politics to realise - The Head Count see *everyone* at the top of politics as rich and powerful.
Angela Rayner is rich and powerful - to them. She earns multiple times their salary in their lifetime, will retire on a pension higher than their salaries, owns lots of property, mixes with the rich and powerful etc.
What the Head Count see is an In Group (Currently the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem) which, to them seems to consist of identikit politicians, selling the same message. Those aspiring to be the Out Group are accepted as the Populares.
I am enjoying this critique of the elite seen through the lens of Classical Rome.
Good morning, everyone.
So, in this scenario, that would make Nigel Farage the equivalent of Julius Caesar?
The hard bit for Farage will be keeping up the pretence that he is an everyman anti-elite crusader. Difficult to do when you are part of the elite. If not this then something else - and it may well be policy.
If the current trend continues and refuk continue to lead, their policy positions will come under scrutiny.
Policy can win or lose an election, even if people agree with the policies they have to agree with the person saying them. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about this - popular policies until you say whose they are.
Farage has the inverse problem - the popular guy who will Fix People's Problems. But as we get into actual detail and people start to actually think, how much of this will survive as people have it explained to them in black and white how the Nigel's policies are the exact opposite of what they expect? How voting Reform will make their lives worse, not better?
I expect "fake news" to be used a lot to try and explain away awkward facts...
The idea that a member of the “elite” can’t represent the “non-elite” doesn’t pass the test of history.
Where did I say that? I said that he claims not to be the elite.
He is claiming to be "non-elite" in outlook, not personal wealth.
Just as Caesar (nobiles, family going back to the kings, immensely rich) claimed to be an outsider to the existing elite - which he was to an extent. His entire political career was in the face of The Establishment.
See all those who have followed him. All the way to Trump.
It seems difficult for those in conventional politics to realise - The Head Count see *everyone* at the top of politics as rich and powerful.
Angela Rayner is rich and powerful - to them. She earns multiple times their salary in their lifetime, will retire on a pension higher than their salaries, owns lots of property, mixes with the rich and powerful etc.
What the Head Count see is an In Group (Currently the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem) which, to them seems to consist of identikit politicians, selling the same message. Those aspiring to be the Out Group are accepted as the Populares.
I am enjoying this critique of the elite seen through the lens of Classical Rome.
Good morning, everyone.
So, in this scenario, that would make Nigel Farage the equivalent of Julius Caesar?
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
As I understand it...
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house (which he says he didn't), that is legal and attracts no tax (unless he dies soon and it comes under inheritance tax).
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house specifically as a way to avoid paying more stamp duty, that doesn't change anything in terms of tax rules, but it might be seen to be cynical.
If Farage came to an arrangement with his girlfriend whereby he pretended to give her money, but they secretly agreed it was still his money, then that would be tax avoidance. (Again, Farage denies doing this.)
Meanwhile, it has been noted that Farage, at the time, said he had bought the house. This turns out to have been not true. It is not illegal to say something that isn't true, but it's not a good look for a politician.
Not quite. He claims not to have gifted the money but if he had he would have had to declare no interest in the property. He lives there.
That’s the crux of it. Does living there mean that it’s treated differently for tax purposes?
I think there is some IHT rule around it - intended to close the loophole of mum and dad transferring the home to their children as a gift - but I might be making things up again.
The 7 year rule wouldn't apply certainly as the donor in our example retains the benefit of the gift so IHT would be payable in full regardless if the arrangement remained the same. I think there is also some issue around a donor with interest in the property actually being considered an owner That's why (I think) Farage cannot have provided the funds in his example/case and stay within the rules
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I Don know the lady's name.)
Gifts are not taxable income. Potentially IHT liable if the worst happens within 7 years
I must have misunderstood what I was being told, which I thought was that gifts over £3000 in one year are taxed as income.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
The guy in the Human League song is a creepy, misogynistic stalker.
Just saying.
Next you'll be saying Every Breath You Take is kind of creepy and not romantic!
That song, of course, is meant to be creepy and Sting was disturbed by how many people interpreted it as romantic, even playing it at weddings. He wrote "If You Love Somebody Set Them Free" in response.
On the subject of inappropriate songs...went to a wedding in Italy where they brought in a London gospel choir. Despite it being "the best thing we do", they were finally convinced a wedding was not the place for "I still haven't found what I'm looking for"...
The Englebert Humperdinck classic Release Me was the right choice
If Farage is the source of funds here I suspect his ex wife will be very interested in whether this £885k was declared as a matrimonial asset. Its quite a chunk of money to have lying around.
The guy in the Human League song is a creepy, misogynistic stalker.
Just saying.
Next you'll be saying Every Breath You Take is kind of creepy and not romantic!
That song, of course, is meant to be creepy and Sting was disturbed by how many people interpreted it as romantic, even playing it at weddings. He wrote "If You Love Somebody Set Them Free" in response.
On the subject of inappropriate songs...went to a wedding in Italy where they brought in a London gospel choir. Despite it being "the best thing we do", they were finally convinced a wedding was not the place for "I still haven't found what I'm looking for"...
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed.
I didn't realise it had got as far as an experiment. A plaything for the bien pensant 1% more like.
BlueSky doesn't have a lot of users, but then X isn't particularly high up there either. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn are all way bigger than X.
That's globally.
X does better in the UK. From 2024 Q3, share of Internet users:
Trevor Phillips on Times Radio this morning said the three main themes of the march were 1) immigration; 2) pride in our country; and 3) christianity.
Which last I didn't see coming as England is quite some way along its post-reformation journey to complete atheism. Stig Abell countered that when people said "christianity" it was shorthand for times gone past (old maids..holy communion...etc).
To which he, Phillips, then went on to say that the/a main driving force of this christian resurgence was from immigrants.
Would be interested to know (though probably unknowable) how many of the marchers on Saturday attend religious events of any kind. In my own part of the world sectarian marchers tend to identify along religious lines but I hae ma doots about how much genuine religious observance is attached. The Christian nationalism (in the UK at least) seems emptily performative, though I'm willing to be surprused by news that Tommy Robinson cuts up his coke with a communion wafer.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Its likely (from those sniffing around the story) an 'original source of the funds' question
Which is a justifiable question.
Instead the focus is "did Farage dodge tax", when he didn't.
Farage claims he had nothing to do with the finance of the purchase. Which makes his engagement of an expert tax adviser to check 'they did everything correctly' somewhat odd
Given the recent result of not consulting an expert tax advisor, relating to property, consulting one to get ahead of any problem seems prudent.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
If she was gifted the money, wouldn't she be taxed on it as income? (Apologies for using 'she', I Don know the lady's name.)
Gifts are not taxable income. Potentially IHT liable if the worst happens within 7 years
I must have misunderstood what I was being told, which I thought was that gifts over £3000 in one year are taxed as income.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
That's one of the reasons I use X. With a bit of effort, the torrent of MAGA and other bots/spam/general sewage can be tamed, and then it provides both an excellent general news feed, and a window into worlds I might never otherwise encounter.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
Yes, I come on here to understand how intelligent rightwingers and Leon view the world.
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Its likely (from those sniffing around the story) an 'original source of the funds' question
Which is a justifiable question.
Instead the focus is "did Farage dodge tax", when he didn't.
Farage claims he had nothing to do with the finance of the purchase. Which makes his engagement of an expert tax adviser to check 'they did everything correctly' somewhat odd
Given the recent result of not consulting an expert tax advisor, relating to property, consulting one to get ahead of any problem seems prudent.
Not if the purchase was nothing to do with you and you had no part in its funding
The guy in the Human League song is a creepy, misogynistic stalker.
Just saying.
Next you'll be saying Every Breath You Take is kind of creepy and not romantic!
That song, of course, is meant to be creepy and Sting was disturbed by how many people interpreted it as romantic, even playing it at weddings. He wrote "If You Love Somebody Set Them Free" in response.
On the subject of inappropriate songs...went to a wedding in Italy where they brought in a London gospel choir. Despite it being "the best thing we do", they were finally convinced a wedding was not the place for "I still haven't found what I'm looking for"...
The first song we had at our wedding was "The Wedding List" by Kate Bush. A song that features a wedding, but is not exactly of the correct mood...
(It's about a wedding where the groom gets shot dead, and the bride hunts down the killer, then commits suicide. Based on the film "The Bride Wore Black")
The Reform leader could face a standards investigation after an appearance at a Republican dinner in Florida where hospitality packages cost up to $25,000
Trevor Phillips on Times Radio this morning said the three main themes of the march were 1) immigration; 2) pride in our country; and 3) christianity.
Which last I didn't see coming as England is quite some way along its post-reformation journey to complete atheism. Stig Abell countered that when people said "christianity" it was shorthand for times gone past (old maids..holy communion...etc).
To which he, Phillips, then went on to say that the/a main driving force of this christian resurgence was from immigrants.
Would be interested to know (though probably unknowable) how many of the marchers on Saturday attend religious events of any kind. In my own part of the world sectarian marchers tend to identify along religious lines but I hae ma doots about how much genuine religious observance is attached. The Christian nationalism (in the UK at least) seems emptily performative, though I'm willing to be surprused by news that Tommy Robinson cuts up his coke with a communion wafer.
Yes I liked Abell's point about it being a shorthand for yearning for England of Old(e), literally white, anglo-saxon protestantism, rather than everyone or anyone any minute getting down on their knees and praying to Jesus because he was risen (cf Charlie Kirk's followers and in the US generally where it is much more a factor in common consciousness).
The Reform leader could face a standards investigation after an appearance at a Republican dinner in Florida where hospitality packages cost up to $25,000
Yeah but that's just Starmers Donkey Field slap on the wrist nonsense
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Its likely (from those sniffing around the story) an 'original source of the funds' question
Which is a justifiable question.
Instead the focus is "did Farage dodge tax", when he didn't.
Farage claims he had nothing to do with the finance of the purchase. Which makes his engagement of an expert tax adviser to check 'they did everything correctly' somewhat odd
Given the recent result of not consulting an expert tax advisor, relating to property, consulting one to get ahead of any problem seems prudent.
Not if the purchase was nothing to do with you and you had no part in its funding
Which no one seems to believe.
As an opponent of Farage, I would say it is smart thing to do. For a relative small amount of money (a fraction of one celeb appearance for Farage) he gets legal cover. And so does his partner.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
I've been convinced for ages that labelling people with different opinions as hard right is dangerous. They get used to the epithet and eventually it becomes a badge of honour, which makes those who really are hard right seem attractive to them.
Trevor Phillips on Times Radio this morning said the three main themes of the march were 1) immigration; 2) pride in our country; and 3) christianity.
Which last I didn't see coming as England is quite some way along its post-reformation journey to complete atheism. Stig Abell countered that when people said "christianity" it was shorthand for times gone past (old maids..holy communion...etc).
To which he, Phillips, then went on to say that the/a main driving force of this christian resurgence was from immigrants.
Sociology of religion in the UK is generally for anoraks only, as in general it doesn't interact much with money, sex (yes I know), fame, and power but USA is different and one or two people may want to bring it here.
In particular no-one up to about last week has mass mobilised the possibility of aggressive, nationalist, racist, faithless, doctrine free, flag waving, crusader, 'Jesus, guns and babies' versions of Christianity.
Some reports from the weekend suggest someone wants to change that. If so, a rough beast is slouching towards Bethlehem.
The old maids cycling, the migrant communities who make up so many of the (sane) evangelical and Roman catholic flocks now, and the liberal well meaning, flower arranging, coffee morning organising, rota arranging, psalm chanting middle class (guilty as charged) had better get themselves defended with their hassocks.
It's interesting how often politicians who sounded rubbish when they were in office become sensible once they've left Government.
Lord Gove, who, apparently held several positions in the Conservative administrations from 2010-24 (it's too early), has told the Independent Commission on Community Cohesion (chaired jointly by Sadiq Javid and Jon Cruddas) the Cameron Government was wrong to remove or water down the ASBOs of the Blair Government just to satisfy civil libertarians.
Once we get past this mea culpa, we then get this piece of wisdom from the former MP for what is now the Liberal Democrat stronghold of Surrey Heath:
He also emphasised the need for civic participation, but said this would be “very, very difficult for the state or its agencies to encourage”.
“The more that lads and dads are going to football together. The more that people are going to places of worship and joining in the activities around that, the better overall.
“But you can’t make people love football, you can’t enforce good parenting, you can’t make people want to take part in a rich civic life if they don’t want to.
“And there are bigger social trends which are encouraging atomisation so that the 11-year-old who might have been going to watch QPR 20 or 30 years ago is now more likely to be playing Fifa at home.”
He said the “right mix” of shops on high streets was key to encouraging a sense of community, adding that “people feel that high streets that have, again, vape shops, Turkish barbers, charity shops and voids in particular are a problem”.
Our politics is a reflection of our life and the way we live and those who marched on the "Unite the Kingdom" protest weren't just a bunch of knuckleheaded racists (undoubtedly there were some) but people desperate to claim or reclaim a sense of identity, of belonging, even of purpose. When you don't recognise the place in which you live and you don't understand the world in which you're living, it's natural to become frustrated and angry.
You might argue (and I'd have some sympathy) an element of this is romanticised nostalgia much as "back to basics" was 30+ years go but the truth is people need to feel comfortable with the world and their place in it. Rapid technological and socio-economic change has happened before and people have protested against it (often violently) and this is another phase. We can't uninvent mobile phones, the Internet, supermarkets or online gaming any more than we can the internal combustion engine - it's about how people, society and politics adapt to change rather than trying to turn the clock back.
To pick up on a very minor point, I don't think charity shops are a problem. They can be hubs of community volunteering, and they offer cheap goods for those affected by the cost of living.
It's not really that they're a problem in themselves - just that they are among the very few legitimate retailers who can continue on provincial high streets without going bust, as they're subsidised retail.
Them, and the odd fast food outlet, which is missing from Gove's list.
A mental stroll down an actual local street gives me ...vape shops, Turkish barbers, small newsagents (any of which are not entirely unlikely to be money laundering fronts), fast food outlets, charity shops, and voids.
Charity shops are not so much subsidised retail as the tax and other costs are reduced to the point they can survive.
If you want high street shops, then the costs and tax need to be reduced to match.
By the way, several of the big charity shop chains do the following - the managers are given targets to get volunteers in to reduce the number of paid hours. In some cases, workers show up for a paid shift to be told that enough volunteers have signed up, so they are sent home. Not very charitable sounding, is it?
Our town has a number of empty shops. at least one of which has been empty since pre 2020. The owner cannot be making money out of it, yet is seemingly happy to have it vacant. Surely any income is better than none?
Is there anything to stop Farage's girlfriend selling the property and walking away with the money ?
If not then this story is going nowhere.
This is the bit I don’t understand about this story. If she owns all of the home, whether that money is gifted or not, isn’t that the end of it for tax purposes? (Waiting for someone very clever to correct me, and as always I am not a tax expert yadda yadda).
Optically, I can see it looks like an unusual arrangement and unusual arrangements always invite questions, though.
The 'allegation' seems to be that Farage has given the girlfriend the money to buy the house to avoid stamp duty.
Even if true that would mean the wealth change is:
Farage -£885k Girlfriend +£885k
So Farage would be risking a £885k financial loss in order to avoid paying £44k in tax.
Which would be more financial reckless than a Reform manifesto.
Farage has explicitly said he did not give his girlfriend the money.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
So how can Farage have avoided tax when he's not been involved in the financial transaction ?
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Its likely (from those sniffing around the story) an 'original source of the funds' question
Which is a justifiable question.
Instead the focus is "did Farage dodge tax", when he didn't.
Farage claims he had nothing to do with the finance of the purchase. Which makes his engagement of an expert tax adviser to check 'they did everything correctly' somewhat odd
Given the recent result of not consulting an expert tax advisor, relating to property, consulting one to get ahead of any problem seems prudent.
Not if the purchase was nothing to do with you and you had no part in its funding
Which no one seems to believe.
As an opponent of Farage, I would say it is smart thing to do. For a relative small amount of money (a fraction of one celeb appearance for Farage) he gets legal cover. And so does his partner.
Taking advice does not exampt you from liability if something has been done wrong. There is no 'legal cover' from advice taken after the fact. Do or do not, there is no try
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
Agree with all that - though I think those of us on here may underestimate the number of people who will grow up and remain in their home town, knowing the same faces they've known all their lives. I'd be interested to see some stats but whenever it comes up I'm quite surprised by the extent to which this is still typical.
FWIW I'm sort of in the middle ground. I've moved around a bit, but never lived more than 80 miles from Manchester. I can draw quite an accurate blob around those places which could ever conceivably feel like 'home' (most, though not all, of the North of England, and a coterminous blob of Central/Southern Scotland) and those which could not (everywhere else). I think it is Herdwick sheep which have an inbred tendency not to wander more than a few miles from where they were born. On a larger scale, I have a similar thing.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
I the bit in bold is partly your bubble talking. The 50 % of the population who go to Uni, move about for work etc will be like you, but there will be many, many others who grow up, live, work and retire in the same area. I know loads of them.
"Asked about the Saturday demonstration, he told me he was himself undisturbed except by the incidents of violence. I think he is wrong. This is the ground on which the battle between those who want to embrace globalisation and those who want to resist — the fundamental division of our time — will be fought out."
Trevor Phillips on form as usual. Amazing that his first hand report from the event is so different to all of the third hand reports talking about the far right thugs etc... it's almost as if there's an agenda from the liberal media mafia.
I think what really rings true to me is this bit:
"One man in his forties told me he had come out to protest against the abandonment of British culture. His mother was English but his father had come from Gujarat to build a new life and had worked in a shop until he had his own. He complained that globalisation was destroying all the values that his Indian family had come to treasure, including freedom of speech."
I also think this is what Trump has tapped into in the US. As soon as China stopped exporting deflation the grand bargain of globalisation was inevitably going to fall apart. It's one thing to export working class jobs overseas in order to get substantially lower prices, a very different one to do so and not. The UK and other countries have lost their industrial bases and jobs to China and now we also high prices for imported goods. Reshoring may not be the answer but neither is what we have today, it doesn't work for enough people.
The problem with globalisation is that we are now reaching the end game where wages are starting to reflect the global level rather than local levels so mant people can buy less with your money,.
And of course keeping a roof over you head is expensive because the demand for housing reflects a supply for housing that thinks the population is 5 million less than it actually is.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
Agree with all that - though I think those of us on here may underestimate the number of people who will grow up and remain in their home town, knowing the same faces they've known all their lives. I'd be interested to see some stats but whenever it comes up I'm quite surprised by the extent to which this is still typical.
FWIW I'm sort of in the middle ground. I've moved around a bit, but never lived more than 80 miles from Manchester. I can draw quite an accurate blob around those places which could ever conceivably feel like 'home' (most, though not all, of the North of England, and a coterminous blob of Central/Southern Scotland) and those which could not (everywhere else). I think it is Herdwick sheep which have an inbred tendency not to wander more than a few miles from where they were born. On a larger scale, I have a similar thing.
I am living in (part of, we split it) the house I grew up in as a teenager, a short distance from the one I was in as a younger child. But this is in north London, so the faces around me have nearly all changed!
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
Interesting. Just to qualify one point. In Cumberland (non lake district part) it is completely normal for people of all ages never to have lived anywhere else but their home town/village and immediate locality. I suspect this is true of a number of not much noticed parts of the country.
There is a also a substantial younger group of people for who this is true except for the years 18-21 approx away at HE of some sort.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed.
I didn't realise it had got as far as an experiment. A plaything for the bien pensant 1% more like.
It's interesting how often politicians who sounded rubbish when they were in office become sensible once they've left Government.
Lord Gove, who, apparently held several positions in the Conservative administrations from 2010-24 (it's too early), has told the Independent Commission on Community Cohesion (chaired jointly by Sadiq Javid and Jon Cruddas) the Cameron Government was wrong to remove or water down the ASBOs of the Blair Government just to satisfy civil libertarians.
Once we get past this mea culpa, we then get this piece of wisdom from the former MP for what is now the Liberal Democrat stronghold of Surrey Heath:
He also emphasised the need for civic participation, but said this would be “very, very difficult for the state or its agencies to encourage”.
“The more that lads and dads are going to football together. The more that people are going to places of worship and joining in the activities around that, the better overall.
“But you can’t make people love football, you can’t enforce good parenting, you can’t make people want to take part in a rich civic life if they don’t want to.
“And there are bigger social trends which are encouraging atomisation so that the 11-year-old who might have been going to watch QPR 20 or 30 years ago is now more likely to be playing Fifa at home.”
He said the “right mix” of shops on high streets was key to encouraging a sense of community, adding that “people feel that high streets that have, again, vape shops, Turkish barbers, charity shops and voids in particular are a problem”.
Our politics is a reflection of our life and the way we live and those who marched on the "Unite the Kingdom" protest weren't just a bunch of knuckleheaded racists (undoubtedly there were some) but people desperate to claim or reclaim a sense of identity, of belonging, even of purpose. When you don't recognise the place in which you live and you don't understand the world in which you're living, it's natural to become frustrated and angry.
You might argue (and I'd have some sympathy) an element of this is romanticised nostalgia much as "back to basics" was 30+ years go but the truth is people need to feel comfortable with the world and their place in it. Rapid technological and socio-economic change has happened before and people have protested against it (often violently) and this is another phase. We can't uninvent mobile phones, the Internet, supermarkets or online gaming any more than we can the internal combustion engine - it's about how people, society and politics adapt to change rather than trying to turn the clock back.
To pick up on a very minor point, I don't think charity shops are a problem. They can be hubs of community volunteering, and they offer cheap goods for those affected by the cost of living.
It's not really that they're a problem in themselves - just that they are among the very few legitimate retailers who can continue on provincial high streets without going bust, as they're subsidised retail.
Them, and the odd fast food outlet, which is missing from Gove's list.
A mental stroll down an actual local street gives me ...vape shops, Turkish barbers, small newsagents (any of which are not entirely unlikely to be money laundering fronts), fast food outlets, charity shops, and voids.
Charity shops are not so much subsidised retail as the tax and other costs are reduced to the point they can survive.
If you want high street shops, then the costs and tax need to be reduced to match.
By the way, several of the big charity shop chains do the following - the managers are given targets to get volunteers in to reduce the number of paid hours. In some cases, workers show up for a paid shift to be told that enough volunteers have signed up, so they are sent home. Not very charitable sounding, is it?
Our town has a number of empty shops. at least one of which has been empty since pre 2020. The owner cannot be making money out of it, yet is seemingly happy to have it vacant. Surely any income is better than none?
Some shops are owned by property funds that would sooner leave a unit empty than break their rule of upwards only rents, in case it starts a precedent for their other renters.
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
I've been convinced for ages that labelling people with different opinions as hard right is dangerous. They get used to the epithet and eventually it becomes a badge of honour, which makes those who really are hard right seem attractive to them.
It's the same as diluting the charge of racism. When it's used against people who have a mountain of historical facts on their side and who point out Cleopatra wasn't black, it becomes effectively meaningless.
But throwing a slur of bigotry (including being far left/right) can be convenient because it means that an argument doesn't have to be made against the beliefs of that person. Instead, you just stamp "bigot" on their forehead, point at them, and remark how wrong they are.
The downside, as we also saw with the EU referendum, is that never making an argument to back up your beliefs or counter those of opponents means politicians, and others, can get rather rusty at both promoting the advantages of their own perspective and pointing out the weaknesses of others.
It's interesting how often politicians who sounded rubbish when they were in office become sensible once they've left Government.
Lord Gove, who, apparently held several positions in the Conservative administrations from 2010-24 (it's too early), has told the Independent Commission on Community Cohesion (chaired jointly by Sadiq Javid and Jon Cruddas) the Cameron Government was wrong to remove or water down the ASBOs of the Blair Government just to satisfy civil libertarians.
Once we get past this mea culpa, we then get this piece of wisdom from the former MP for what is now the Liberal Democrat stronghold of Surrey Heath:
He also emphasised the need for civic participation, but said this would be “very, very difficult for the state or its agencies to encourage”.
“The more that lads and dads are going to football together. The more that people are going to places of worship and joining in the activities around that, the better overall.
“But you can’t make people love football, you can’t enforce good parenting, you can’t make people want to take part in a rich civic life if they don’t want to.
“And there are bigger social trends which are encouraging atomisation so that the 11-year-old who might have been going to watch QPR 20 or 30 years ago is now more likely to be playing Fifa at home.”
He said the “right mix” of shops on high streets was key to encouraging a sense of community, adding that “people feel that high streets that have, again, vape shops, Turkish barbers, charity shops and voids in particular are a problem”.
Our politics is a reflection of our life and the way we live and those who marched on the "Unite the Kingdom" protest weren't just a bunch of knuckleheaded racists (undoubtedly there were some) but people desperate to claim or reclaim a sense of identity, of belonging, even of purpose. When you don't recognise the place in which you live and you don't understand the world in which you're living, it's natural to become frustrated and angry.
You might argue (and I'd have some sympathy) an element of this is romanticised nostalgia much as "back to basics" was 30+ years go but the truth is people need to feel comfortable with the world and their place in it. Rapid technological and socio-economic change has happened before and people have protested against it (often violently) and this is another phase. We can't uninvent mobile phones, the Internet, supermarkets or online gaming any more than we can the internal combustion engine - it's about how people, society and politics adapt to change rather than trying to turn the clock back.
To pick up on a very minor point, I don't think charity shops are a problem. They can be hubs of community volunteering, and they offer cheap goods for those affected by the cost of living.
It's not really that they're a problem in themselves - just that they are among the very few legitimate retailers who can continue on provincial high streets without going bust, as they're subsidised retail.
Them, and the odd fast food outlet, which is missing from Gove's list.
A mental stroll down an actual local street gives me ...vape shops, Turkish barbers, small newsagents (any of which are not entirely unlikely to be money laundering fronts), fast food outlets, charity shops, and voids.
Charity shops are not so much subsidised retail as the tax and other costs are reduced to the point they can survive.
If you want high street shops, then the costs and tax need to be reduced to match.
By the way, several of the big charity shop chains do the following - the managers are given targets to get volunteers in to reduce the number of paid hours. In some cases, workers show up for a paid shift to be told that enough volunteers have signed up, so they are sent home. Not very charitable sounding, is it?
Our town has a number of empty shops. at least one of which has been empty since pre 2020. The owner cannot be making money out of it, yet is seemingly happy to have it vacant. Surely any income is better than none?
Some shops are owned by property funds that would sooner leave a unit empty than break their rule of upwards only rents, in case it starts a precedent for their other renters.
Easiest way of destroying the value of your property fund - reduce the rent on a property as everyone else in the centre will insist on the same deal come renewal.
And yes I know its exactly what Fairliered is saying but reality is until a shopping centre is virtually empty even a site with 1 or 2 occupied units can look far healthier to the fund than a full centre where the rents are low.
It's why forcing empty sites to be rented via an open auction is the best ways of filling our town centres up with shops, no fund is going to willingly admit their paper valuation for a centre is a work of fiction.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
I the bit in bold is partly your bubble talking. The 50 % of the population who go to Uni, move about for work etc will be like you, but there will be many, many others who grow up, live, work and retire in the same area. I know loads of them.
The bulk of both sides of my rather extended large family have lived most or all of their lives in Norfolk. Aside from Uni and 2 years in Essex ive been here for well over 50 years. My father lives in a house he bought in 1972, ive family who live in a house handed down in their direct line of the family since the early 20th century. I agree with you, and im in no way unusual as ive childhood friends who are in the same situation.
Two or three generations ago our equivalents would perhaps have gone to the pub every evening to see the same dozen people - its still the world shown at the Queen Vic, Woolpack and Rovers Return - now we come here and talk to people from around the country.
Yes and I'm certainly not in the camp of those who believe all "change" is inherently bad. It can be unsettling, certainly, but it's often positive in time.
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
I'm probably an extreme example - I grew up in cities in 3 different countries, worked in two others, and I've retired to a happy marriage in an Oxfordshire village. I don't feel particularly rooted anywhere, but I'm aware of multiple influences. People who say proudly that they've never lived anywhere but their home town sound increasingly unusual, and I can't see that ever being reversed. An effect of that is that lifelong friendships tend to be occasional encounters without losing all their essential quaity - I have a friend in California who I met last week for the first time in 60 years, and we rapidly tuned into each other.
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
I the bit in bold is partly your bubble talking. The 50 % of the population who go to Uni, move about for work etc will be like you, but there will be many, many others who grow up, live, work and retire in the same area. I know loads of them.
The bulk of both sides of my rather extended large family have lived most or all of their lives in Norfolk. Aside from Uni and 2 years in Essex ive been here for well over 50 years. My father lives in a house he bought in 1972, ive family who live in a house handed down in their direct line of the family since the early 20th century. I agree with you, and im in no way unusual as ive childhood friends who are in the same situation.
In fact.... Just working this out.... In an hour from this sofa, on foot, I could walk past and end up at every house my grandparents and parents ever lived at from the start of WW2 to today
Edit - no im wrong, there was a brief period just before my birth my mum and dad were elsewhere but that brief period aside......
Comments
You could do similar on land value - do the same price tracking but take out the RICS rebuild cost or similar.
I support all of these approaches in principle. I am however interested in my particular case, where my land would nowadays support probably three or even four houses. It's a 1920s semi with a long garden - now rather than a row of semis along the road, there would be a cul-de-sac or another parallel road put in. Does that mean my land is high value? On the market it wouldn't be as you couldn't build the extra houses without purchasing neighbouring ones and knocking them down too - there's not enough space on the side for an access road. If you did a simple value per sqm calculation based on local averages then it would be assessed as high value nonetheless.
Perhaps it will be women breastfeeding in public. Perhaps it will be anyone not White British. Perhaps it will be the left.
But the failure will not be owned by Farage or the Farage Party. It will be someone else's fault.
(Of course, he had said he'd bought the house and that turned out not to be true...)
The technological changes outpace the cultural adaptations - we know that. There have also been huge societal changes over the past couple of hundred years, some of which happened very quickly and again adaptation is outpaced by the speed of that change.
When Mrs Stodge came to England from NZ in 1991, her communication with her family back in Kiwiland was either by letter or a short and expensive weekly phone call. 30+ years on, she can FaceTime her mother for free and it's like being in the room with her. In that sense, as you rightly say, technology has improved the quality of life for so many people who aren't in physical proximity - my parents and my maternal grandparents lived in neighbouring streets on the same estate in south east London in the 1960s.
The converse of that it has encouraged or driven what Gove calls "atomisation" (amongst other factors). We can be anywhere, we can be everywhere and we can be nowhere all at the same time.
The State thinking everything belongs to it and you only have temporary custody of your own possessions and wealth.
And would invite a whole new swathe of workarounds
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
Slightly long post. But there's a lot of concern on the moderate Left today about the Robinson event. Fine. But if you actually want to do something about it you have to understand four things:
1) To deal with the underlaying causes requires hard policy proscriptions on areas like immigration. And you will have to endorse positions that make you instinctively uncomfortable. But they are unavoidable.
2) The Blue Sky experiment has failed. You may hate Musk. But this is the most influential platform on the globe. If you abandon it to Robinson and his allies you have already lost.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1967502268833403136
Stop it...
£3000 a year
£250 to unlimited people
Any amount out of disposable income
None would attract IHT regardless of when the donor dies
I know a married couple with a second home in Cornwall. They do apparently own one each, and when they were faced with second home council tax, one of them moved her residency to the Cornwall one. Not sure if this is dodgy or not, but as they spend approximately equal amounts in each place it doesn't seem unreasonable
This is the difference between Rayner and Farage - Rayner owns the Hove flat whereas Farage doesn't own the Clacton house.
Just saying.
If you abandon the political dimension of that global meeting-space entirely to the hatd right, that just becomes many less politically committed people's sense of objective reality, and also majority opinion.
I never thought it would happen
Buying a house in Clacton
And some supporters will believe every word and repeat them for ever.
But governments need more than that to be re-elected.
As Trump discovered in 2020.
Them, and the odd fast food outlet, which is missing from Gove's list.
A mental stroll down an actual local street gives me ...vape shops, Turkish barbers, small newsagents (any of which are not entirely unlikely to be money laundering fronts), fast food outlets, charity shops, and voids.
Instead the focus is "did Farage dodge tax", when he didn't.
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house (which he says he didn't), that is legal and attracts no tax (unless he dies soon and it comes under inheritance tax).
If Farage gave his girlfriend money to buy a house specifically as a way to avoid paying more stamp duty, that doesn't change anything in terms of tax rules, but it might be seen to be cynical.
If Farage came to an arrangement with his girlfriend whereby he pretended to give her money, but they secretly agreed it was still his money, then that would be tax avoidance. (Again, Farage denies doing this.)
Meanwhile, it has been noted that Farage, at the time, said he had bought the house. This turns out to have been not true. It is not illegal to say something that isn't true, but it's not a good look for a politician.
And shuffles about in his candlelit hovel.
Like some kind of witch with blue fingers in mittens
He smells like the cat and the neighbours he sickens.
If we are doing Squeeze classics
Just as Caesar (nobiles, family going back to the kings, immensely rich) claimed to be an outsider to the existing elite - which he was to an extent. His entire political career was in the face of The Establishment.
See all those who have followed him. All the way to Trump.
It seems difficult for those in conventional politics to realise - The Head Count see *everyone* at the top of politics as rich and powerful.
Angela Rayner is rich and powerful - to them. She earns multiple times their salary in their lifetime, will retire on a pension higher than their salaries, owns lots of property, mixes with the rich and powerful etc.
What the Head Count see is an In Group (Currently the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem) which, to them seems to consist of identikit politicians, selling the same message. Those aspiring to be the Out Group are accepted as the Populares.
If the girlfriend turns up to their door with a pot of £800k, isn’t there meant to be some form of investigation as to where that £800k comes from? Particularly given that she is a connected person to a UK politician, so doesn’t that make it more strict?
Which last I didn't see coming as England is quite some way along its post-reformation journey to complete atheism. Stig Abell countered that when people said "christianity" it was shorthand for times gone past (old maids..holy communion...etc).
To which he, Phillips, then went on to say that the/a main driving force of this christian resurgence was from immigrants.
He claims not to have gifted the money but if he had he would have had to declare no interest in the property. He lives there.
Do you remember from GCSE geography the Burgess and Hoyt models of cities? When I was small I had a very clear understanding that while city centres held some useful functions, no-one wanted to be anywhere near them. In my head I carried around a Burgess model even before I knew it existed. This wasn't just Manchester, it was most of the UK's big industrial cities. I was fascinated when I found out that the UK - due to its industrial history - wasn't typical, and things didn't have to be like that.
Even so, to get to a place where inner Manchester is a desirable place to live still seems astonishing, and credit to the visionaries who believed in it.
This site is peculiar: it's a scrapyard, long since surrounded by reasonably high value flats. But it's cut off between the railway and the Manchester Ship Canal. I had expected it to be redeveloped ten years or more back, but it's clinging on while the flats march outwards past it.
Musk took what was a monopoly and fractured it. While Bluesky isn’t the success others think it should be it’s a far nicer platform to spend time on and 1 I trust because I understand the algorithm that is generating the feed displayed to me.
The fact people on here don’t understand the power of those algorithms is frankly worrying for the world as a whole (because if we don’t understand that power even after it’s been explained x hundred times there is zero chance the general public will understand how they are being quietly manipulated
I find that particularly obvious in the general tenor of everyday discussions that are less obviously political, which it's harder for algorithms to identify or exclude, and which feed many people's sense of background reality.
If you want high street shops, then the costs and tax need to be reduced to match.
By the way, several of the big charity shop chains do the following - the managers are given targets to get volunteers in to reduce the number of paid hours. In some cases, workers show up for a paid shift to be told that enough volunteers have signed up, so they are sent home. Not very charitable sounding, is it?
I think there is some IHT rule around it - intended to close the loophole of mum and dad transferring the home to their children as a gift - but I might be making things up again.
Which makes his engagement of an expert tax adviser to check 'they did everything correctly' somewhat odd
"Asked about the Saturday demonstration, he told me he was himself undisturbed except by the incidents of violence. I think he is wrong. This is the ground on which the battle between those who want to embrace globalisation and those who want to resist — the fundamental division of our time — will be fought out."
Trevor Phillips on form as usual. Amazing that his first hand report from the event is so different to all of the third hand reports talking about the far right thugs etc... it's almost as if there's an agenda from the liberal media mafia.
I think what really rings true to me is this bit:
"One man in his forties told me he had come out to protest against the abandonment of British culture. His mother was English but his father had come from Gujarat to build a new life and had worked in a shop until he had his own. He complained that globalisation was destroying all the values that his Indian family had come to treasure, including freedom of speech."
I also think this is what Trump has tapped into in the US. As soon as China stopped exporting deflation the grand bargain of globalisation was inevitably going to fall apart. It's one thing to export working class jobs overseas in order to get substantially lower prices, a very different one to do so and not. The UK and other countries have lost their industrial bases and jobs to China and now we also high prices for imported goods. Reshoring may not be the answer but neither is what we have today, it doesn't work for enough people.
So, in this scenario, that would make Nigel Farage the equivalent of Julius Caesar?
I think there is also some issue around a donor with interest in the property actually being considered an owner
That's why (I think) Farage cannot have provided the funds in his example/case and stay within the rules
Nonetheless, the trend increases the importance of electronic interaction, and in a way I know people on this forum better than I know my Calfornian friend. Couple that to the natural tendency to find idelogically and philosophically ttuned online groups, and you can see how the world becomes atomised and people come to think that nearly everyone agrees with their ideas, however odd. I used to know a Danish Supreme Court judge who deliberately read a hostile daily paper to counter that tendency, but few of us have the time or inclination for tht - I never look at the Mail, and shouldn't think that Marquee Mark spends much time studying the Guardian.
That does make forums with varying opinions like this quite important and refreshing. We may not agree with each other, but at least we become more aware that we exist!
X does better in the UK. From 2024 Q3, share of Internet users:
WhatsApp 79.9%
Facebook 72.3%
Facebook Messenger 56.6%
Instagram 54.1%
X 36.9%
TikTok 36%
iMessage 33.6%
LinkedIn 30.2%
Pinterest 26.2%
Snapchat 25.6%
Reddit 20.6%
Telegram 14.6%
Skype 12.2%
Nextdoor 11.2%
Discord 10%
But even then I knew I'd find a much better place, either with or without you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPudE8nDog0&t=93s
Story checks out.
With a bit of effort, the torrent of MAGA and other bots/spam/general sewage can be tamed, and then it provides both an excellent general news feed, and a window into worlds I might never otherwise encounter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ymxgS4XHRA
(It's about a wedding where the groom gets shot dead, and the bride hunts down the killer, then commits suicide. Based on the film "The Bride Wore Black")
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/nigel-farage-failed-to-register-us-trip-for-trump-fundraiser-cbht572l2
The Reform leader could face a standards investigation after an appearance at a Republican dinner in Florida where hospitality packages cost up to $25,000
As an opponent of Farage, I would say it is smart thing to do. For a relative small amount of money (a fraction of one celeb appearance for Farage) he gets legal cover. And so does his partner.
In particular no-one up to about last week has mass mobilised the possibility of aggressive, nationalist, racist, faithless, doctrine free, flag waving, crusader, 'Jesus, guns and babies' versions of Christianity.
Some reports from the weekend suggest someone wants to change that. If so, a rough beast is slouching towards Bethlehem.
The old maids cycling, the migrant communities who make up so many of the (sane) evangelical and Roman catholic flocks now, and the liberal well meaning, flower arranging, coffee morning organising, rota arranging, psalm chanting middle class (guilty as charged) had better get themselves defended with their hassocks.
Do or do not, there is no try
FWIW I'm sort of in the middle ground. I've moved around a bit, but never lived more than 80 miles from Manchester. I can draw quite an accurate blob around those places which could ever conceivably feel like 'home' (most, though not all, of the North of England, and a coterminous blob of Central/Southern Scotland) and those which could not (everywhere else).
I think it is Herdwick sheep which have an inbred tendency not to wander more than a few miles from where they were born. On a larger scale, I have a similar thing.
And of course keeping a roof over you head is expensive because the demand for housing reflects a supply for housing that thinks the population is 5 million less than it actually is.
There is a also a substantial younger group of people for who this is true except for the years 18-21 approx away at HE of some sort.
But throwing a slur of bigotry (including being far left/right) can be convenient because it means that an argument doesn't have to be made against the beliefs of that person. Instead, you just stamp "bigot" on their forehead, point at them, and remark how wrong they are.
The downside, as we also saw with the EU referendum, is that never making an argument to back up your beliefs or counter those of opponents means politicians, and others, can get rather rusty at both promoting the advantages of their own perspective and pointing out the weaknesses of others.
And yes I know its exactly what Fairliered is saying but reality is until a shopping centre is virtually empty even a site with 1 or 2 occupied units can look far healthier to the fund than a full centre where the rents are low.
It's why forcing empty sites to be rented via an open auction is the best ways of filling our town centres up with shops, no fund is going to willingly admit their paper valuation for a centre is a work of fiction.
I agree with you, and im in no way unusual as ive childhood friends who are in the same situation.
In an hour from this sofa, on foot, I could walk past and end up at every house my grandparents and parents ever lived at from the start of WW2 to today
Edit - no im wrong, there was a brief period just before my birth my mum and dad were elsewhere but that brief period aside......